tommy, are you suggesting that InDesign doesn't have a "collect for output" option? Have you ever made a PDF file? 1 file, fonts and images imbedded. If I misunderstood you, I apologize. Off subject, I work for a small publisher that, well, publishes four monthly newspapers and a monthly magazine. Tomorrow morning we deliver the final XPress file to the printer. From here on out it's InDesign and PDF files. Oh, really off subject, I just installed our dual 1.25 with 1.25GB RAM today.
[quote] Quality and familiarity <hr></blockquote>
Quality? Adobe makes nothing but quality products. Familiarity? I am familiar with InDesign because I also use Illustrator and Photoshop.
<strong>tommy, are you suggesting that InDesign doesn't have a "collect for output" option? Have you ever made a PDF file? 1 file, fonts and images imbedded. If I misunderstood you, I apologize. Off subject, I work for a small publisher that, well, publishes four monthly newspapers and a monthly magazine. Tomorrow morning we deliver the final XPress file to the printer. From here on out it's InDesign and PDF files. Oh, really off subject, I just installed our dual 1.25 with 1.25GB RAM today.
Quality? Adobe makes nothing but quality products. Familiarity? I am familiar with InDesign because I also use Illustrator and Photoshop.
many of you guys seem to think that pdf's shit don't stink. i don't doubt that it will be the wave of the future and it's come a long way but it is not there yet for many of us that require high end output. issues with color and fonts still exist to some degree or another. there is absolutely no way i'd trust it for 95% of our print jobs. color alone is to crucial.
Just FYI, I listened to a stream of The Mac Night Owl Live the other night,. They had Quark's product manager on for an interview. The thumbnail summary:
1) It's OS X only so that it can be optimized for OS X - mostly in terms of speed;
2) It's taken as long as it has in order to make sure it runs well on OS X;
3) They deliberately changed the interface as little as possible, citing simplicity and familiarity;
4) They are especially keen on keeping Quark's layout precision and output/input device compatibility at previous levels;
5) Their biggest selling points, which the guy stressed at every opportunity, were performance and familiarity. Your designers can sit down at an OS X box for the first time, fire up Quark for the first time, and start working.
I'm too lazy to take the five minutes it would require to look up his name, because it's past my bedtime and I just blew a really good game of ULarn, but he admitted that XPress 4 was a mistake that Quark doesn't want to repeat (another reason, he says, that it's taking them as long as it is to roll this out).
Make of it what you will. My experience with Quark is limited to an adventure installing it on a B&W G3 with no floppy drive. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
actually, for any of you who have ever worked around a major newspaper or magazine using QuarkXPress, almost all editorial-designer workflows were arranged around a system called QPS.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have to disagree. I work for the largest newspaper in the United States and we don't use QPS. In fact, we hate Quark. We use it because we have to, but we're trying as hard as we can to switch to InDesign.
There's no denying that Quark has entrenched itself into the Mac publishing world, but nobody I know is looking forward to Quark 6.
[quote] tommy, are you suggesting that InDesign doesn't have a "collect for output" option? Have you ever made a PDF file? 1 file, fonts and images imbedded. If I misunderstood you, I apologize. <hr></blockquote>
Ya, Misunderstood. It's all good.
[quote] Off subject, I work for a small publisher that, well, publishes four monthly newspapers and a monthly magazine. Tomorrow morning we deliver the final XPress file to the printer. From here on out it's InDesign and PDF files. <hr></blockquote>
I need high quality output. PDF's are not ready for that kind of primtime yet. I don't know how long it will take for them to get PDF technology to that level for us high-enders. In the mean time, I need Quark.
[quote] Quality? Adobe makes nothing but quality products. Familiarity? I am familiar with InDesign because I also use Illustrator and Photoshop. <hr></blockquote>
No, don't misunderstand..Adobe makes GREAT products..however..they are determined to shove that PageMaker-esque way of doing things into InDesign. Instead of catering to the PageMaker users who will proabably never switch, target the majority of the people who would switch to a high end program..Quark users...but however..most people did not use "RageMaker" due to the fact of the way it handled and still does handle text, and pictures. If you want us Adobe..COME AND GET US. We need high end...not pdf..and we need compatibility to the n-th degree..if you want to get most of the users..you are gonna have to make that crossroad abit closer! I know of many companies who are using InDesign as a stop gap to hush the IT guys ( or in some cases WHINEY workers.) I am not bashing Adobe, just wishing they got the mindset of most Quark users..we hate pagemaker..BECAUSE of the ways..not because of Adobe's products..they are great in that facet. They should just quit trying to make the investment in "RageMaker" work..and go for the gold..stop inhibiting people to switch....
InDeisgn is more intuitive as is than Quark has ever been.
I've turned some Quark loyalists over the last few months. these are people who've been using Quark for years and were fearful of trying InDesign in a produciton environment. but as soon as they open the program you get nothing but positive feedback.
i haven't had any problems with my printers.
i'm biased.
i've always disliked Quark. it's always felt awkward and anti-human to me. but that's just my take on it.
i'd heard a little while back that Quark was working on some server/content management system functionality with Microsoft. that sounds evil. i'd like to hear what comes of that.
Comments
[quote] Quality and familiarity <hr></blockquote>
Quality? Adobe makes nothing but quality products. Familiarity? I am familiar with InDesign because I also use Illustrator and Photoshop.
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: fahlman ]</p>
<strong>tommy, are you suggesting that InDesign doesn't have a "collect for output" option? Have you ever made a PDF file? 1 file, fonts and images imbedded. If I misunderstood you, I apologize. Off subject, I work for a small publisher that, well, publishes four monthly newspapers and a monthly magazine. Tomorrow morning we deliver the final XPress file to the printer. From here on out it's InDesign and PDF files. Oh, really off subject, I just installed our dual 1.25 with 1.25GB RAM today.
Quality? Adobe makes nothing but quality products. Familiarity? I am familiar with InDesign because I also use Illustrator and Photoshop.
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: fahlman ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
many of you guys seem to think that pdf's shit don't stink. i don't doubt that it will be the wave of the future and it's come a long way but it is not there yet for many of us that require high end output. issues with color and fonts still exist to some degree or another. there is absolutely no way i'd trust it for 95% of our print jobs. color alone is to crucial.
1) It's OS X only so that it can be optimized for OS X - mostly in terms of speed;
2) It's taken as long as it has in order to make sure it runs well on OS X;
3) They deliberately changed the interface as little as possible, citing simplicity and familiarity;
4) They are especially keen on keeping Quark's layout precision and output/input device compatibility at previous levels;
5) Their biggest selling points, which the guy stressed at every opportunity, were performance and familiarity. Your designers can sit down at an OS X box for the first time, fire up Quark for the first time, and start working.
I'm too lazy to take the five minutes it would require to look up his name, because it's past my bedtime and I just blew a really good game of ULarn, but he admitted that XPress 4 was a mistake that Quark doesn't want to repeat (another reason, he says, that it's taking them as long as it is to roll this out).
Make of it what you will. My experience with Quark is limited to an adventure installing it on a B&W G3 with no floppy drive. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>
actually, for any of you who have ever worked around a major newspaper or magazine using QuarkXPress, almost all editorial-designer workflows were arranged around a system called QPS.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have to disagree. I work for the largest newspaper in the United States and we don't use QPS. In fact, we hate Quark. We use it because we have to, but we're trying as hard as we can to switch to InDesign.
There's no denying that Quark has entrenched itself into the Mac publishing world, but nobody I know is looking forward to Quark 6.
[quote] tommy, are you suggesting that InDesign doesn't have a "collect for output" option? Have you ever made a PDF file? 1 file, fonts and images imbedded. If I misunderstood you, I apologize. <hr></blockquote>
Ya, Misunderstood. It's all good.
[quote] Off subject, I work for a small publisher that, well, publishes four monthly newspapers and a monthly magazine. Tomorrow morning we deliver the final XPress file to the printer. From here on out it's InDesign and PDF files. <hr></blockquote>
I need high quality output. PDF's are not ready for that kind of primtime yet. I don't know how long it will take for them to get PDF technology to that level for us high-enders. In the mean time, I need Quark.
[quote] Quality? Adobe makes nothing but quality products. Familiarity? I am familiar with InDesign because I also use Illustrator and Photoshop. <hr></blockquote>
No, don't misunderstand..Adobe makes GREAT products..however..they are determined to shove that PageMaker-esque way of doing things into InDesign. Instead of catering to the PageMaker users who will proabably never switch, target the majority of the people who would switch to a high end program..Quark users...but however..most people did not use "RageMaker" due to the fact of the way it handled and still does handle text, and pictures. If you want us Adobe..COME AND GET US. We need high end...not pdf..and we need compatibility to the n-th degree..if you want to get most of the users..you are gonna have to make that crossroad abit closer! I know of many companies who are using InDesign as a stop gap to hush the IT guys ( or in some cases WHINEY workers.) I am not bashing Adobe, just wishing they got the mindset of most Quark users..we hate pagemaker..BECAUSE of the ways..not because of Adobe's products..they are great in that facet. They should just quit trying to make the investment in "RageMaker" work..and go for the gold..stop inhibiting people to switch....
InDeisgn is more intuitive as is than Quark has ever been.
I've turned some Quark loyalists over the last few months. these are people who've been using Quark for years and were fearful of trying InDesign in a produciton environment. but as soon as they open the program you get nothing but positive feedback.
i haven't had any problems with my printers.
i'm biased.
i've always disliked Quark. it's always felt awkward and anti-human to me. but that's just my take on it.
i'd heard a little while back that Quark was working on some server/content management system functionality with Microsoft. that sounds evil. i'd like to hear what comes of that.
<strong>3) They deliberately changed the interface as little as possible, citing simplicity and familiarity;
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Using standard tab sizes, antialiased text in the GUI and so on would make it complicated?